Best Talented Content

  • Flat Earth vs Spherical Earth

    Hello and thank you for your arguments! I am sorry that people are spam fallacy(ing) you, it is something that I find distasteful as well. In the meantime, while I got my round earth arguments from the site, I used my own words save in one instance and created my own at the end. Let's begin, this could take a while.

    "Thanks. In this debate, I will attempt to prove that we don't live on a spinning ball which is spinning at 1,000 mph, rocketing around the sun at 66,000 mph, which is blasting around a galaxy at faster than light which is inturn blasting around a magical great attractor faster than light."

    Even if we did perchance live on a flat Earth, we would still be rocketing around the sun at 66,000 miles per hour and around a galaxy. This changes nothing here. 

    The Gyroscope Argument: 

    I saw the video, and it did seem convincing, but there was no experiment shown with the spherical Earth, just an assumption that the degree of rotation would shift by 15 degrees. However, this gyroscope does concede a critical point, that Earth at least has a diagonal axis running through the middle of it. In order to maintain position, the gyroscope has to remain tilted, similar to our spherical Earth. Why is this important? This changes the way we see curvature, not on a round Earth that is not tilted, but one that is on an axis and slightly shifted, totally changing calculations, which I will use later to negate your calculations. 

    Atlantean Conspiracy:

    Unfortunately, I can not go through every argument, but I will name a few key ones that stand out.

    (If anyone wants to view > (

    Argument 60:

     "Anyone can prove the sea-horizon perfectly straight and the entire Earth perfectly flat using nothing more than a level, tripods and a wooden plank. At any altitude above sea-level, simply fix a 6-12 foot long, smooth, leveled board edgewise upon tripods and observe the skyline from eye-level behind it. The distant horizon will always align perfectly parallel with the upper edge of the board. Furthermore, if you move in a half-circle from one end of the board to the other whilst observing the skyline over the upper edge, you will be able to trace a clear, flat 10-20 miles depending on your altitude. This would be impossible if the Earth were a globe 25,000 miles in circumference; the horizon would align over the center of the board but then gradually, noticeably decline towards the extremities. Just ten miles on each side would necessitate an easily visible curvature of 66.6 feet from each end to the center."

    Yes, the horizon will always be parallel, but this does not mean the Earth is flat, the way we see the horizon, it is impossible to see the horizon itself dip down because that would require that we see over the horizon. Maybe an image will help.
    Image result for trying to see over the horizon images

    If we could see over the horizon, that would be great, but we can't. Because the horizon minimally dips away from us, we would have little way of telling than sending an object over the horizon, which I have proved in the constructive with boats and the sun. It would be trying to see over a curve, you can see before the curve, but it is impossible to see the dip-down, as noted by my height argument in Const. 1.

    Also, I have an interesting strategy that helps me find flat curvature amounts. If you check the debate Is Earth a Ball, Erf posted a picture of the NYC skyline 48 miles away and said that we would need to see 1536 feel of curvature. How did he get this? Let me show, and then I will show how I got your 66.6.

    Take 48 miles and wrongly multiplying it by water refraction of 1.33. Next, multiply it by 48 miles again to create a plane of vision. Then divide by 2, since flat earth believers use triangles and our perception on one object is that of a triangle. Then, account for any elevation changes and bam! 

    Calculations. 48*1.33*48/2 > 1532.16! Assuming that the person was at sea level, this is the closest calculation possible to 1536. 

    Your Amount: Luckily, your number is more sophisticated, and multiplies by a more modest 1.026, which is air refraction, but still can be found on elevation circumstances.

    Calculations: 10*1.026*10/2 > 51.3 feet of C
    Calculations: 20*1.026*20/2 > 205.3 feet of C

    From this, it is easy to say that if the Earth believer is tracing a line between 10-20 miles and curvature is 66.6, this makes an easy problem. The miles he is working with is 11.395 miles, use my calculations to see for yourself. 

    The issue here is that you use a parallel board, and not a plane, which negates the plane part of the argument! Thus, the same calculation, without the plane.

    Calculations: 11.395*1.026/2 > A much more modest 5.84 feet of visible curvature. From now on, since we view the horizon in a line, this will be my go to, and not the plane argument add on from the flat earth. 

    Thus this is the response to your curvature tests, but there is one more I will attack:

    Argument 69:

    "The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park’s Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain’s 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth."

    Once more, we are not seeing in triangles, or a plane. there is no 170 feet of curvature necessary, though this number is more modest than most that I have seen.

    Calculations: 60*1.026/2 > 30.78 feel of curvature. 

    Now apply elevation, it is not impossible for you to see below the horizon with higher elevation, and I will use the same image to show this.

    point of view on a round Earth

    The higher up one is, the more one can see more than a person at sea level! Thus, that 30 feet probably negates, since Manhattan's elevation is 22 feet. 30-22 > 8 feet is the possible margin of error, but because of elevation, this means nothing.

    Argument 70:
    "From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth’s curvature."

    Here is the one instance I accuse you of false imagery, because I researched the location of the mountain, and despite originally confused with the distance, I saw the second city just a bit apart. The monument is really far away from Philly, but close enough to NYC to see buildings. However, lets look at your image.

    There is one answer, here is a map location of the park: Green Brook Township, NJ 08812

    Now, to see NYC, the viewer must face right, and see NYC, and there appears to be a city nearby. This would be impossible seeing Philly, because Philly is IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION! South-West, as a matter of fact. This image is not one of Philly, it is of NYC's neighboring city in New Jersey across the bay called Jersey City. That or somebody C/P Philadelphia into the image, but that would be lame. Debunked.

    Moving on :)

    You say that you have images not showing Earth's curvature, a 317K feet image when is in space! Yeah, space begins at 50 miles, or about 264,000 feet, at least in the US. While the world sets it at 380K, because of differing measurements (metric system), this at least shows that if you use NASA images, then we take the 264,000 amount, thus proving the existence of space and the validity of images from NASA.

    For the curvature tests from these heights, you would still have to be higher, because even at 60 miles up, Earth is 25,000 miles, seeing curvature would still be minimalist, if at all. Here is one such image from the moon.
    Image result for earth from the moon images

    Just so you know, I got this image from NASA, not a photo shopped picture. I don't even think they HAD Photoshop in 1969, in addition, film screens were black and white back then, so they couldn't have possibly been filming it, otherwise, we would have conclusive evidence. Rather, they are using a camera to snap a colored picture, which was around at the time, thus proving the moon landings. And yeah, you can see a star in the left hand side. Because we view Earth upward, and this picture is downward, and because the moon doesn't have a magnetic, gravitational, or atmospheric layer, seeing stars is harder, plus the image is pointing down.

    BTW: Do you notice how half the Earth is covered? Good, because this also proves the moon's rotational patterns!

    Rebutting the Rebuttal!

    1. Unfortunately, I can't provide you with photographs, but keep in mind, this year was 1961, and the ENAIC computer was developed in 1948. Considering that that computer took the size of a room, there is no way anyone could put a video inside the plane, the only videos I can find released by the Russian government are here.

    2. "This argument is really just a hasty generalization fallacy. While it may be true that those other objects according to those accounts you mentioned, claiming that the Earth cannot be flat because Jupiter's moons appeared spherical during observations is like claiming that the square in the middle of my profile picture is actually a circle because it is surrounded by 8 other circles."

    Except we are talking about constellations, not profile images. If Jupiter's moons are spherical, then how can the Earth be flat? As we exist on Earth which is in space, everything must be spherical because as proved with Einstein's images, everything has gravity and mass, which weighs the object down in space. Jupiter's moons are in the same way, spherical because they have mass orbiting around an object with a larger mass. In addition, if we have a semicircle over us according to flat earth believers, then why don't we have a bottom portion?

    Second, what do you think of asteroids that have hit the Earth if there is no space where they came from?

    "My opponent claims that all constellations should be visible if the Earth were flat. He seems to have no understanding of perspective. Objects overhead are high, as they move away from us they appear to drop. Just as the railroad tracks appear to move into one another, the tops of the telephone poles appear to get lower. eventually the pole blends in with the horizon. The same thing happens with star constellations. Got it?"

    Definition of Perspective: "the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other when viewed from a particular point."

    Objects can't appear to drop because that is not caused by perspective. Perspective, as shown in the definition, involves how we see something in moment, like Orion's Belt. Perspective of stars does not change over time. That would be like if I took my backpack and laid it on the ground, and suddenly, within three months of laying around, it somehow disappears. No, there has to be a different factor at hand, namely Earth's rotation and a round Earth changing seasons. Second, "when viewed from a particular point supports my theory because Ursula and Orion's Belt are two different seasonal constellations, so they have to be viewed from a particular point, summer or winter! This is not caused by a shift in perspective, this is how we view them when a third factor, as mentioned, causes it to be so!

    "From 3 miles, we can only see 1.5 feet of curvature". Right. And I provided tests from hundreds of miles, which means we should definently notice the curvature.

    And yes, it is certainly not due to ocean swells, it is due to perspective."

    This number is a bit higher than 1.5 > 3*1.026/2 > 1.539, but excusing that, take 317,000 feet up and convert to miles > 317,000 / 5280 = 60 miles (.03 for haters). Thus, we have a proportion to solve. (3/1.539 = 60/X > 3X = 92.34 > 30.78 feet of curvature visible. Certainly impressive, but inaccurate, since that only judges the way up to that point, not the radius around it, we'll use a plane because we are judging an entire area of horizon drop, not a single ground to horizon line calculation. Now, solve a second proportion, Gooberry noted that atop a 874 foot skyscraper in Houston, one could see for 32-36 miles (34 averg.). Convert distance here to 317,000 feet. 874/34 = 317,000/X > 874X=10778000 > 12331.8 miles. Impressive, but we have to again divide by 30 feet since that was the original proportion for 3 miles 12331.8 miles/30 > 411.06 miles. This is how many miles we can see, now use my previously found formula to find curvature. (BTW, I did this all by myself and a calculator, no other source! #MathPride)

    Calculations: 411.06*1.026/2 > 210.87 miles of visible curvature, which would be minimalist, considering Earth's 25000 miles curves proportionate to its sphere shape. 

    Also, the boat does not go over the horizon, it merely stays on the horizon.

    "Gravity does not exist. Rather, density and buoyancy are independent forces which cause this to happen. For example, if we are to drop something like, for example, a book, it will fall as it is more dense than the air in which surrounds it. If we drop a balloon, it will rise, because the helium in the balloon is less dense. Got it?"

    But then, the independent forces would collide with each other, thus causing random areas of 0-gravity, which is impossible. Gravity acts upon the mass (and density) of an object, which is why denser things fall, and less dense objects rise. Gravity acts proportionate to area of an object and its weight, not buoyancy, which only acts on an objects flotation on water.

    6. The reason the moon emits its own light is because the sun's light bounces off the moon and is visible to people on Earth. Without this, our tidal patterns would ultimately change.

    I know this is a lot, but Good Luck on the final counter rebuttal, and thanks for the debate!

  • Flat Earth vs Spherical Earth

    Okay, to begin the spherical Earth, it is important to note that the Earth is not completely spherical, There are some bulging points, namely near the Equator. In this debate, I will show how the Earth is round by addressing key points and correcting misconceptions.

    Here is an image of why the Earth is not completely spherical:

    Image result for round earth images

    However, this can not be taken as fact that the Earth is flat. Here are a list of arguments why the Earth is not Flat:

    1. The Moon and Its Cycles.

    Flat Earth believers will try to show that the sun and moon rotate, but have no conclusive evidence to show for the moon's cycles. When the moon waxes and wanes, the moon is a result of the moon's motion as well. Scientists have never seen the dark side of the moon, and this is because on the date when the dark side shows, we are in a new moon phase. 

    Image result for moon revolving around earth

    It is important to know that this occurs because the moon is on an axis and therefore the moon's revolutions can occur. Because the moon is in the shape of a crescent and a round shape, in addition to the moon's shadow, the Earth must be spherical.

    Second, with the moon, we have what are known as lunar and solar eclipses. The sun is exactly in position with the moon, and when the moon blocks the sun for a single instant, an eclipse will occur. This is impossible under flat earth measures, as the moon and sun orbit as such. 

    Image result for flat earth revolution

    In no way does this show how an eclipse or moon patterns can occur, yet in a spherical pattern, this can occur due to rotation and the fact that Earth is on an axis. 

    Image result for eclipse pattern rotation

    Alignment has to be perfect, so this only occurs usually once or twice a year per lunar and solar, and with many different types, such as hybrid, partial, and full, it is in conclusion that because of the nature of the eclipse and that it is not full every time, the earth has to be spherical in order for eclipses to differ in time and amount.

    2. Star Constellations:

    If the Earth is flat, then why don't we see every star constellation. Well, star constellations change over time, we can see Orion's belt in the winter and Ursula in the summer. Because of rotation and location to the equator, we see different constellations as a result of our place. Here is an image to show this. 
    Stargazing on a flat Earth

    stargazing on a round Earth

    3. Elevation

    If we had elevation on a flat Earth, we would be able to see everything from a greater height. However, this is untrue, from a lower elevation, we can not see as much as a person at a higher elevation. On a flat Earth, we should be able to see everything regardless of height, but on a round Earth, perspective makes more sense. 

    point of view on a flat Earth

    point of view on a round Earth

    4. The Horizon

    I know this is a major issue for people, but as noted in previous debates, in certain locations, man can perform tasks in order to see above 30 miles by ascending a mountain, going on top of a skyscraper, or in a plateau region. As previously mentioned with elevation, we can see more because we are higher up than a person down below. One common argument is that objects on the horizon are not covered, making the Earth flat. However, we must take refraction out of the question, and show that any images has some degree of curvature. From 3 miles, we can only see 1.5 feet of curvature, incredibly hard to detect. Next, why would objects disappear over the horizon, like the sun, and boats. 

    Image result for sun over the horizon
    Image result for boat over the horizon

    This is certainly not because of swells, as some flat earthers will claim, swells can not cover 60 feet in the ocean. That is the equivalent of a 4 story building, which is not how the ocean functions. Rather, objects over the horizon will begin to disappear, most notably the sun, as it goes across the globe and into another part of the world. This is precisely why we have the international date line, because the sun's movement across a spherical earth must work as shown. 

    5. The Discovery of Other planets:

    "The Earth is different from other planets, that much is true. After all, we have life, and we haven’t found any other planets with life (yet). However, there are certain characteristics all planets have, and it will be quite logical to assume that if all planets behave a certain way, or show certain characteristics—specifically if those planets are in different places or were created under different circumstances—our planet is the same.

    In other words: If so many planets that were created in different locations and under different circumstances show the same property, it’s likely that our own planet has the same property as well. All of our observations show that other planets are spherical (and since we know how they’re created, it’s also obvious why they take this shape). Unless we have a very good reason to think otherwise (which we don’t), our planet is very likely the same.

    In 1610, Galileo Galilei observed the moons of Jupiter rotating around it. He described them as small planets orbiting a larger planet—a description (and observation) that was very difficult for the church to accept, as it challenged a geocentric model where everything was supposed to revolve around the Earth. This observation also showed that the planets (Jupiter, Neptune, and later Venus was observed too) are all spherical, and all orbit the sun.

    A flat planet (ours or any other planet) would be such an incredible observation that it would pretty much go against everything we know about how planets form and behave. It would not only change everything we know about planet formation, but also about star formation (our sun would have to behave quite differently to accommodate the flat-earth theory) and what we know of speeds and movements in space (like planets' orbits and the effects of gravity). In short, we don’t just suspect that our planet is spherical. We know it."

    Source: ;

    6. Gravity

    Some people try to disprove gravity, but gravity attracts objects to a larger object. On a flat earth, this would be impossible, as gravity would not be in the center of any mass to pull on. For a spherical earth, gravity pulls objects to a unified source, the core of the Earth. Because of this, when we jump, we are pulled down, not from our own weight, but because gravity has a pulling effect on our bodies. In space, there is no gravity, which allows for freedom of movement, but on Earth, we have a force that keeps us from Super manning off the edge of a building and flying. 

    Image result for gravity on a round earth

    All objects have weight, and therefore, the Earth and the Sun must be attracted to a black hole or a star with greater gravity than our planet. (Comes from Einstein BTW)

    7. History of Space:

    In order to prevent any debates about images from space, let us instead focus on the history of space. Not only did we land a man on the moon with images to prove this, but Russia sent the first man into space and orbit before successfully returning. Flat Earth believers will try to show that because of the parabola visible on takeoff, there must be a barrier, but this is untrue. We can not see into space, but the parabola rips into space and allows us a brief glance at flight into space. 

    Image result for man on the moon

    One might try to disprove the shadows, or note the lighting, or the flag position. Remember, the moon still has gravity, and we do have moon rocks in NASA's collections. The flag is waving because the moon's gravity still has an effect on it that can not be prevented. 

    Image result for first man into space

    Read the article on the right about the Soviet officer, it should be quite helpful.

    Feel free to rebut some of this information, I hope that these seven proofs have shown the roundness of the Earth. 

  • Germany's Immigration Crisis

    I get so tired of this immigration debate. People act like ISIS could just take over all of Europe overnight. Not only would a full-fledged ISIS state in Europe be completely incompatible with the continent, the worst the ISIS forces could throw at them would be a mere dink in the Combined EU military armor. In other words: this is utter paranoia.

    I always liked how the French government handled the 1998 World Cup terror plot: The public was never informed of the incident, thus the terrorists never got the publicity they desired, and the people remained joyous at their national team winning the World Cup.
  • The shape of the earth.

    To make sure there is no dishonest misrepresentation of what the scientific method is, we should probably start with the question, and start formulating testable experiments that allow various topologies and geometries to be discounted. From here we can rapidly narrow down to one or two geometries, then can select the geometry that best fits the evidence and experiments.

    That’s #science.

    So let’s start off with the basics. We’re talking about geometry, so we can determine the geometry of the earth we are standing on by attempting to determine a single property:

    What is our orientation compared to all other observers.

    If up is the same for all observers, the earth is flat. If there are six different “ups” that are all 90 degrees different from any other: the earth is a cube, if the change in orientation for any observer is directly linearly proportional to distance, the earth is a sphere.

    So; a way to scientifically prove the geometry of the earth is by finding a test that allows us to determine the orientation of all observers.


    The best way of confirming the orientation is to have each observer measure the position of an object multiple observers can see at the same time. 

    You can do this with the sun, the moon or stars.

    Their observed location will be a product of where they actually are, combined with the observers orientation. The latter is what we are attempting to determine.

    If you make a number of measurements; you will see something interesting:

    No matter where you are, or what location you are, if two observers are 69 miles apart, in any direction, the sun, the moon, or the stars will be in exactly 1 degree different positions in the sky.

    On a flat surface this isn’t possible. As the object and each observer should form a triangle. Tan(o/a) shows that has you get further away from the object on the earths surface, the amount the angle changes decreases: ie: if you move 70 miles, you will have a bigger change in perceived angle if you are closest to the object than if you are 5000 miles away.

    While this effectively means that observers must be orientated 360 degrees in 3 dimensions. While this could be described by a football type geometry or a geodesic with many sides: as we’ve never seen any form of ridge these can all be discounted.

    So geometrically; this proves the earth is a sphere, as these measurements are not consistent with the geometry of a flat surface.

    So, now we can get into the realm of confirmations, this takes the form of measurements that are consistent with the earth being a sphere. We should see most observations being consistent with a the earth being a sphere, and a flat earth. Consistence here is based on geometry only without additional explanations or theories added.

    So let’s go through them: (I’m assuming people know how to use google: every thing on the list below can be confirmed with a quick google search).

    1.) all other planets appear to be spheres. If any of the other planets appeared flat, the idea that the earth were flat would be more plausible.

    2.) the sun appears to set for all observers on the earth. The times and nature is consistent with a spherical earth, but not flat.

    3.) There is a horizon for all observers, that objects appear to fall over, and tall buildings are obscured by. This is consistent with a spherical earth, and not with a flat earth.

    4.) the sun moves at a constant rate through the sky. This is consistent with the earth being a rotating sphere, and inconsistent with the earth being flat, and the sun rotating overhead. This is the principle of how sundials work:

    5.) the sunset is at locations inconsistent with a flat earth and consistent with a sphere: at the horizon on the equinox, the sun rises due east and sets due west. On a flat earth, as described by flat earthers, the sun would be north east and north west respectively.

    6.) the regions of earth that have daylight are consistent with a spherical earth: with a straight edged terminator.when the map of the earth is flattened, the regions of daylight and nighttime make no sense when the earth is flat, as some night time areas would be closer to the Sun than areas of day time. In addition on a flat earth, even a close sun would be higher over the horizon at all times due to perspective, meaning all parts of the world would be within line of sight of the sun.

    7.) lunar eclipses are always round: never a line, no matter when or where they occur. This is consistent with a spherical earth, and inconsistent with a flat earth.

    8.) pictures of earth, as a sphere, from space have been provided by multiple space agencies and governments hostile to each other, and a number of private organizations.

    9.) GPS satellite technology has been developed that is based off satellite signals being received in the sphere. Hundreds of disparate companies are involved with the development of the satellite, commercial GPS chips, test equipment for validating them, etc: and gps is confirmed to work in the ocean, in the desert and in the arctic. This is not consistent with a flat earth, and is consistent with a spherical earth.

    10.) Gravity is measured to be stronger North/south by an amount consistent with gravity being cancelled out by the centripetal force at the equator more than at the poles.

    11.) Gravity would prevent the earth being flat, and requires it to be a sphere. This is also provides consistent explanations for the formation of the earth, and why all other planets are spheres.

    12.) the distance you can see and the objects you can observe are related to how high up you are, this is consistent with a spherical earth and not a flat earth where you would have consistent depth of view with objects in the way the only limiting factor other than this.

    13.) when using a device (a pendulum or gyroscope) with sufficiently low friction, the change they exhibit appears consistent with a rotating earth.

    14.) lunar eclipses can happen, which are inconsistent with a flat earth.

    15.) multiple dozens of companies in multiple countries develop and use satellites, including television, communications, satellite phones and have done since the days of Telstar.

    16.) we can observe satellites like the ISS, and others passing behind the shadow of the earth on a daily basis.

    17.) the stars rotate in different directions in the north and south, and appear to be moving in a straight line at the equator. This is perfectly consistent with a spherical earth.

    In addition it’s worth covering the observations that are not consistent with a curved earth.

    1.) There is always a horizon, but objects that should be a little beyond the horizon are sometimes visible.

    2.) lunar eclipses are sometimes visible when the moon and sun are both visible to an observer.

    3.) at short distances the earth appears flat.

    (1) and (2) are not evidence of a flat earth, as they could also explained by other geometries (such as parts of the earth being flatter than others, or the globe being larger than thought.

    (3) is not inconsistent with a spherical earth that is large, as any curvature or racing away of the earth would be nearly inperceptible and difficult to measure accurately.

    (1) is explained by measurable effects: the atmosphere can bend light as warm humid air and cold air have different refractive indexes, as this ends up curving light by small amounts. Measurements of air and snells law of refraction make this apparent. This is also a consistent explanation as these locations that are visible are only visible in specific conditions, and non predictable times; rather than all the time.

    (2), as with 1; knowns properties of air, and known laws of physics allows us to determine that the position of the sun and moon would be raised due to refraction; happily explaining this geometry.

    So, let’s compare the explanations side by side to which explanation best fits the facts.


    • the earth is a sphere; and
    • Refraction works the way establishes science implies it should

    Or (given what I understand listening to flat earthers)

    • the earth is flat. And
    • Every single picture of earth has been faked. And
    • Millions if not tens of millions who work in satellite communication, technology, GPS and the space industry are engaged in a massive global conspiracy AND
    • Multiple hostile governments have colluded to cover up the truth, over 60 years, and
    • Images have been faked since the late 1940s, in some cases with images far more advanced than the apparent technology to fake at the time, and
    • Not a single piece of documentary evidence consistent with this global cover up has ever been released or distributed. And
    • Despite multiple millions of individuals over many decades needing to have knowledge of the conspiracy, no credible whistleblower has come forward and
    • A team of individuals are constantly recruited to engage in cgi and photoshop and other fakery without anyone being tipped off and
    • There is some other process that by fluke of coincidence shifts the apparent position of the sun, the moon in just the right way that they appear to match the expected position they would be if viewed upon a sphere and
    • There is an additional rahu around the earth that by fluke of coincidence makes it appear as if there is a lunar eclipse in just the right way to be consistent with a spherical earth. And
    • There is some unknown force that moves the sun and moon around that no one has ever been able to measure and coincidentally moves the sun and moon in a way that exactly matches the way it should move on a spherical earth. And
    • There is some unknown reason by which the stars appear to rotate in different directions in a way that is coincidentally identical to how it should appear on a spherical earth. And
    • There is a team of people faking satellites with planes or other objects that have never been spotted taking off, refueling, etc. And
    • Some unknown force causes Foucault Pendulums and precision low friction gyroscopes appear to precess at just the right amount to be consistent with a spherical earth. And
    • Some unknown reason or force causes the measured weight/gravity to be different at the poles vs the equator by exactly the right amount to be consistent with the force of gravity being cancelled out by the force generated by earths rotation. And
    • Some atmospheric phenomena exists that matches the behaviour of objects appearing to fall over a horizon in exactly the way expected on a spherical earth.
    • Some mechanisms exists that causes the distance you can see to be proportional to the height of objects rather than obstructed perspective.

    It’s pretty clear here that the idea of that multiple coincidental process all “just so happen” to conspire to make the world look as if it’s spherical strains credulity.

    Most importantly: as there are multiple unknowns that would have to be assumed to exist; as well as multiple coincidences that conspire, it’s clear that flat earth fails Occam’s razor by a massive gulf; and thus a spherical earth most clearly and self evidently matches all the observations concisely, and with the fewest assumptions.

    So as a result; actually applying the scientific method; flat earth absolutely fails to meet even the most basic scientific standard.

    Indeed, it is not clear how anyone can think it is a scientific position given the number of unknowns, coincidences and unexplainable happenstance is necessary for it to be true.


  • The shape of the earth.


    The OP hasn't constructed the opening post correctly and put forward an actual motion along the lines of "The Earth is spherical" which people can then be either 'for' or 'against'. As it stands it looks like people who think the Earth is spherical and those who think the earth is flat are both using 'For', so as it's 2 (soon to be 3) spherical earth advocates using it versus 1 flat earther, I suggest Flat Earthers switch to using 'Against' going forward.

    The Case For the Earth being Spherical

    The case for the earth being spherical is fairly clear. We know it is round. People circumnavigate the globe. We have satellites orbiting it. People have taken pictures from space. For thousands of years people have not only been conducting experiments (Strabo's observations at sea, Foulcalts pendulum, our accrate model driven predictions of when eclipses will occur, etc) and we have consistently seen the earth is round.

    It seems a moot point wasting time covering this when the evidence is so overwhelming - everyone who can watch a sunset and sea the sun disappear below the horizon rather than slowly shrinking to nothing can sea the earth is spherical. Instead I'll focus on showing the logical fallacies, baseless claims and outright lies of the Flat Earth side.

    The Rebuttal - SIlverishGoldNova

    Overall, before I get into specifics, I will note that while SilverishGoldNova tries to present a professional appearance to his argument, the actual content of his argument is very amateurish. He will make some statement which - if it were true - would turn our world upside down and which has a little number to show that there's some evidence that supposedly supports it, but then if you actually check it his evidence to support it will be a poorly thought out drawing in MSPaint.

    The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant spinning sphere tilting and hurling through space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. There would be a massive bulge of water in the oceans because of the curvature of the earth. If earth was curved and spinning the oceans of water would be flowing down to level and covering land. Some rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill. There would massive water chaos and flooding! What we would see and experience would be vastly different! But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of luids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense [1] [2]. Water has also been proven to be undeniably flat, many, many times. One such example would be in this video [3].

    Flat and level level surfaces of water as Silverish imagines them do not exist.

    Ultimately there will be a curve, although at the very small close to the surface level in which we live the amount of curvature in a glass of water or a pond or a lake will be unnoticeable.

    However by observation from everything from how objects disappear over the horizon to satellites from space to GPS the physical measrurements people have made as they've traversed the earth we know it is curved.

    Silverish makes the claims "If earth was curved and spinning the oceans of water would be flowing down to level and covering land. Some rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill. There would massive water chaos and flooding! What we would see and experience would be vastly different!" but I have no idea why he would think this and his claims seems incompatible with modern physics.

    Refuting his sources one at a time:

    1) - Irrelevant. He admits later on in the post that we would only expect to see curvature from a height of over 35,000 feet (and in fact he misses out the appropriate qualifiers). By his own standards that he accepts, this is therefore irrelevant as we would not expect to detect the curvature under these circumstances.

    2) - This is just random unsupported claims with no evidence, but in picture form. No evidenciary value so can be ignored.

    3) - Supports a spherical earth. The sun clearly goes below the horizon. If the Earth was flat it would be unable to do this. As it could not be lower than the earth from one POV while be higher than the earth from another (e.g. we know that Sunset is London is high noon in parts of the USA)

    There are many flight patterns that, while they make absolutely no sense on a spherical Earth, make sense on a flat Earth. First off, looking at Antarctica, we know none of these flight patterns exist [4]. We know these are impossible on a flat Earth (especially if you have seen a flat Earth map) [5], but are possible on a globe Earth and infact, would result in shorter flight times. We are often told these flights do not exist because it is too cold. However, we are also told we have sent probes to outer space, which is MUCH more frigid. It is more of an excuse than an explanation.

    Some of these flights DO exist. For instance one of his connections in source four is from Buenos Aires to New Zealand. We can see planes make this flight

    Silverish has therefore conceded the argument as he states "We know these are impossible on a flat Earth". As we know at least one of these actually happens and it happening is impossible on a flat earth, by Silverish's logic the earth cannot be flat.

    For those that don't exist, you'll note that at least one connection is to an incredibly unpopulated area like the Southern tip of South America, Western Australia which is largely desert, etc and where we would not expect there to be major international flights.

    Source 5 is just a random picture of what flat earthers think, not actual evidence, and can therefore be discarded.

    [6] [7] Then look at this. On a ball earth, during a flight to Johannesburg to Perth, it should be a straight shot over the ocean and we should be able to land for refueling in Mauritus or Madagascar. But instead, most flights will stop in Dubai, Hong Kong, or Malaysia. It should also be a straight shot over the atlantic to go to Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, but many flights instead make a re-feuling in London, which would be impossible on a spherical Earth. 

    He provides no reason why these flights would be impossible. On a spherical earth you can fly from any one point to any other point. There may be reasons you choose not to, but there is no logical reason that I can see or that Silverish has actually offered to support his claims that this would be impossible to fly from Johannasburg to Sao Paulo on a spherical earth.

    You will also note that, again, direct flights that don't go through London DO in fact exist for both routes:

    Now many flights will stop at London or other major centres for air travel, but this is due to economic and logistics concerns. Simply put, a lot of places don't have enough commuters that you can afford to have them all travel there directly. Instead they go to a major air hub and then get a connecting ;

    We are widely told we can see curvature at a height of around 35K Feet, the typical range where airplanes typically fly at. There have been reports of seeing curvature outside of an airplane window, but this has been debunked many times before. The curved glass of an airplane window will distort curvature [8]. We also have images showing no curvature from 80K feet, 121K feet, and 317K Feet [9] [10].

    The actual rule is that we need a clear horizon, a wide field of view and will need to centre the horizon in your camera and then we will be able to see curvature - but Silverish omits this.

    Centreing the horizon in the middle is important due to how light refracts on lenses and causes distortion:

    This distortion is a measurable and expected feature of basically every lense in existence. Barrel distortion is the norm and means that straight lines below the centre of the lense will have the middle curved downwards (hence making a curved horizon look straight) and those above the centre of the lense will have the middle curve upwards making a curved horizon look even more curved. You will typically see every single flat earther image is below the centre of the frame. When we take pictures where the horizon is in the centre and from a large height with a clear view, you see the expected curvature which would be impossible on a flat earth.

    Let's have a look at the 'evidence' he has supplied.


    [8] - Nothing, he did not actually supply evidence for this at all.

    [9] - - Pictures with lines drawn on them with no explanation. Does not actually make any claims or have any point.

    [10] - - A picture which to my eye shows curvature even though it is below the centre of the horizon but as it's so cloudy it's hard to see exactly where the horizon is.

    No evidence to support his claims at all.

    Many images allegedly showing curvature from similar heights have been shown to simply be hoaxes, or were blatantly recorded using a fish eye lense. Heres a humoruous example [11].


    He is meant to be showing images which are faked, but he instead shows images that he thinks are real. Neither of them meets the required standard with both of them having the horizon below the centre of the image and one having an especially restricted view as well.

    As it also is referenced here even though he doesn't link the source, I'll also respond to 12 - - here. That is not a fisheye lense. As shown above, all lenses have distortion distortion.

    We have also caught NASA admitting to faking images. "The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17". If you read further, we also have them saying that they stitched a "flat map" collected with satelite data onto a ball. Interesting [12]. Not only this, but there are videos throughouly debunking the 2 images they just don't wanna admit are fake, as throughougly as my debunking of the rest of "photographic evidence" [13] [14] [15].

    The first outright lie rather than poor reasoning or lack of evidence.

    As per his own source 13 (, NASA specifically explains how they took images of an earth when they didn't have satellites or shuttles far enough away to do so. Similar to how a google street view is several photos stitched together to give a complete 360 view, several photos from satellites orbiting earth but not orbiting it far enough away to see an entire hemisphere were stitched together. It is not a lie because they have clearly explained how they have done it and it is a method which would allow for an accurate representation of the Earth's shape.

    I'm not sure why he links 12 ( as it applies more to him than any other poster I have seen. he has posted multiple images where the curvature (or lack thereof) is not present but would be accounted for by the positioning of the horizon below the centre of the frame. He is making exactly the kind of error he expects others to make.

    [14]. - Africa, the Saudi Arabian Region, Antarctica and the Indian Ocean are all illuminated. According to the source the video uses, all those regions should have been illuminated at the time the date was taken which shows the photo is accurate. Then, showing poor spatial reasoning, the YouTuber has an issue because the actual 3d placement of shapes does not match a 2d projection. THis distirtion is expected because you cannot accurately represent the surface of a sphere in two dimensions without getting fractal. It's a well known and basic fact of maps. Please see ; or (for an entertaining example) Silverish shows his poor spacial reasoning by believing this argument.

    [15]. - A video of someone making unsupported claims which can therefore be rejected as simply owning video editing software do not make baseless claims factual.

    It is one of the most compelling arguments which convinced me into a flat Earth (and I must say thanks to Edl for waking me up) [16]. According to the globe Earth model, this should be impossible, and Chicago should instead disappear over the horizon. However, this is not the case. The common explanation is that this is just a mirage, but if you have actually seen a mirage you will know this is not true [17]. We may similarly use the Toronto skyline as evidence [18]

    False. According to the globe earth model, this is exactly what we'd expect. As shown time and time again and something you can even practice at home, light refracts when it passes through materials of a different density gradient - it only travels in a straight line in a vacuum or when moving through a consistent surface:

    Now the atmosphere has a density gradient, with the air getting thinner the higher you go (e.g. people struggling to breath on mountains). We would therefore expect it to curve, so exactly as predicted it extends the amount people can view.

    You can see another explanation here:


    Points 16 and 18 therefore match what would be expected in a globe earth and point 17 is just a random image with no real relevance.

    The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution! [19] [20]


    Silverish offers evidence that the midnight sun happens, but no evidence that it cannot happen on a globe earth beyond baseless claims. In fact this is just more poor spatial reasoning on his part - it's fairly obvious that it could if you think about it:

    If the Earth is tilted on it's axis, of course you could have 24+hours of sunshine. As visualised in this example, the entire Antarctic region would have sunshine as the earth rotates which is what is experienced in reality.

    i. If Earth were a ball, the Southern Cross and other Southern constellations would all be visible at the same time from every longitude on the same latitude as is the case in the North with Polaris and its surrounding constellations. Ursa Major/Minor and many others can be seen from every Northern meridian simultaneously whereas in the South, constellations like the Southern Cross cannot. This proves the Southern hemisphere is not “turned under” as in the ball-Earth model, but simply stretching further outwards away from the Northern center-point as in the flat Earth model. [21]

    ii. Sigma Octantis is claimed to be a Southern central pole star similar to Polaris, around which the Southern hemisphere stars all rotate around the opposite direction. Unlike Polaris, however, Sigma Octantis can NOT be seen simultaneously from every point along the same latitude, it is NOT central but allegedly 1 degree off-center, it is NOT motionless, and in fact cannot be seen at all using publicly available telescopes! There is legitimate speculation regarding whether Sigma Octantis even exists. Either way, the direction in which stars move overhead is based on perspective and the exact direction you’re facing, not which hemisphere you are in. [22]


    Once again Silverish offers no proof of his claims. His only evidence being two images of ideas of how he thinks the earth should look. his claims about how on a globed earth the Southern Cross should be visible from everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere simultaneously but isn't? Completely unsubstantiated with nothing to back it up, so there's nothing for me to rebutt.

    As for his images of how he thinks stars work, we can see through basic observation that he is wrong. According to his pictures, people on the "outside" of the equatour" who look "out" towards the giant ice wall of Antarctica (or to us, people looking south) will see stars moving horizontally, parallel to the horizon. In fact we can see that in reality they rotate around a central point like they do at the North Pole - exactly as would be expected of the Earth was an orb spinning on its axis which cuts through the North and South Poles: See and  and countless others.

    The evidence for a Spherical Earth is clear. The only things to the contrary you'll hear are baseless claims and made up facts from Flat Earthers.
  • Is Cloning Humans A Good Idea

    @agsr and @love2debate, I get the idea that there's concerns ahead for the misuse of clones, and I get where you're both coming from, but there's a reason I phrased my concerns as I did above. The issue is not with the mistreatment of what are clearly humans - it's with the mistreatment of clones that may not be classified as human by virtue of what they are designed to lack. We would essentially be creating sub-human entities that could not be defended under the law. I do think there's a lot of important ethical concerns to be had with that.

    The reason I'm not concerned with the treatment of clones that would be clearly human is that we already do that with actual human beings. Clones, so long as they bear all of the traits of a human being, could not be classified as a sub-species - they would be human, and deserving of the same rights as any other human. Will some be sold into slavery on the black market? Probably, though I'd say that's less likely to happen than selling children conceived naturally into slavery, which happens right now, particularly with sex slaves. No matter how mass market cloning gets, it's still likely to be more expensive and demanding than basic conception, and since they will all have to be born into the world via uterus (at least for the conceivable future), they have all the same costs as a normal pregnancy on top of that. That's a very expensive way to make a slave. If we're talking about the possible future in which clones are made and grown in vitro (i.e. outside a human being), then that would also likely be much more expensive than pregnancy, and even if it was cheaper, people would do it to have children without cloning. If people were growing babies for super cheap, then that would be the problem, not cloning itself.

    Last thing. @agsr, you said "I wouldn't want someone to clone me illegally and harvest for organs." No one would do that. The reason that someone would grow a clone in order to harvest organs is to clone themselves so that the organs are genetically identical to themselves. If they cloned you to harvest your clones' organs, it would defeat the purpose because you are not genetically identical to them.
  • Is The United Nations Needed?

    Let’s start by defining what the UN is. The United Nations is "an intergovernmental organization established on 24 October 1945 to promote international co-operation... The organization is financed by assessed and voluntary contributions from its member states. Its objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict."[]

    So now the question is, why is it needed?

    There are several major functions of the UN.

    First, and perhaps most important, is its capacity in peacekeeping. The UN plays an essential role in national and international stability, responding to a variety of human rights violations in many nations. Theoretically, any nation or group of nations could function in this capacity, but there are some key differences. Their forces function solely as a neutral peacemaker and peacekeeper, something that no individual country (or small group of countries, for that matter) can reasonably claim. This means that, unlike the concerns with other nations, their entry isn’t construed as a declaration of war, or as meddling on the part of the countries behind the participating troops. Moreover, the UN cannot act unilaterally – the only way they can get troops to do this is if individual nations provide them. So they are not a sovereign entity, they have no nationalistic concerns that could function as ulterior motives, and they’re generally trusted by the vast majority of nations in the world, as most every nation has joined.

    Second, the UN functions as a microphone for a variety of small nations that would otherwise go unheard. It is only because the UN exists that small nations that would otherwise be ignored can have their plights heard. It’s because the UN exists that oppressed parts of nations can precipitate meaningful response. It’s also really important for responding to nations that would otherwise do harm to countries like the US. The conflicts of interest that pervade individual nation responses to, say, North Korea are effectively absent when directed from the UN. It can draw other nations into a response, particularly in the form of sanctions. 

    It's nice to believe that in a world without the UN, every nation will treat each other well. But the reality is that national interests will always prevail. The UN is a distinct check against those interests, keeping global interests as the most essential.

  • Is The United Nations Needed?

    The United Nations (UN) is not needed on any scale including the global scale.

    The UN receives billions of dollars from many countries in an un proportional way from many countries. The United States currently pays over $2,000,000,000 out of over $5,000,000,000 to the UN which is an extremely high amount compared to what the other countries such the UK, France, etc.

    The UN is also not needed due to countries being able to efficiently converse and communicate with each other as well as set their foreign policy and make their own decisions.
  • Will Trump And Congress Pass Infrastructure Bill?

    Keeping it simple. Pro's argument focused solely on what could be, rather than explaining why it would be. Sure, it's fine to say that such a bill could be bipartisan, but it's entirely unclear why it would be likely to pass, especially given the divisions between the two parties in status quo. Admittedly, Con doesn't mention partisan issues, but with a lack of warrants from Pro, there's not much reason to believe that a bill will pass - Pro just asserts that it will. The rest of Pro's argument just asserts the bounds of when it will happen and how much it will amount to, though neither of those support the resolution.

    Meanwhile, Con stays focused on the question of whether or not it would happen. He points to a few plausible reasons why such a legislation would either not be pursued or would never make it through Congress. There is a distinct lack of support for all of these points, and the warrants are pretty threadbare, but Con doesn't need to do anything more than just assert that such legislation won't pass and provide even a single warrant. He does that, and that's sufficient to net him the debate.

    I'm choosing not to award other points as I think both sides are pretty much tied in the other categories.
  • Formal Debate: The Earth is flat

    Beautifully done @SilverishGoldNova ; ..I love the "Here comes the sun" video, real good proof there.

    "The most undeniable proof, .. "   video, .. the quarter experiment angle of the camera to the flatness of the table seems off to me, do we have a better video of that?
    The other one is the sun getting smaller video, I never witnessed this?
    Other than that, what's there to debate? The Earth is flat, and we been lied to for all them years.
    SilverishGoldNova | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch